Slashdot Mirror
Economists Discuss the Financial Repercussions of the Destruction of the Death Stars (hackaday.com)
szczys writes: What would the Galactic Economy look like following the destruction of two Death Stars? This is the informed Star Wars debate taking shape between to people who know their economics. Elliot Williams, a Ph.D. in Econometrics, has just debunked the work of Zachary Feinstein who claimed that the Rebel Alliance would have been off had they not destroyed the two Death Stars because what they're left with is a Galactic Economy in ruin. Feinstein, a professor at Washington University in St. Louis, published a scholarly paper early this month saying it was financial suicide to destroy both of the giant construction projects. Williams' take on things is that the project was a sunk cost; destroyed or whole the Death Star expenditures already made are gone and not likely to further cost or benefit the new government. Perhaps most interesting in the discussion is how you estimate the cost of the Death Star projects and the GGP — the Galactic Gross Product of the fictional universe.
"News for Nerds. Stuff that matters."
This is the first topic in a long time that's firing on all 8 cylinders, baby!
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Work on real problems, and if you can't see any and you're an economist, you're also fired.
Well, it does illustrate a basic economic concept: If you buy guns instead of butter, you cannot later change your mind and transmogrify the guns into butter. It is surprising how many people don't understand the principle of sunk costs.
You can if there's someone else with butter and no guns.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."